Granville Community Calendar

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALSMay 27,1999MINUTESPresent: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Greg Sharkey,Eric StewartAlso Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner,Lindsey Mason,InternVisitors: Jim Cooper,Frank Murphy,Sharon Wells,Joe Hickman,Darryl Payne,Martha MatesichMinutes of April 22,1999: Page 1: Add at end of second full paragraph: A percentage of her sales aretelephone orders.Page 2, Add at end of Line 9, This is a difficult standard for the applicant to meet.Page 4,add at end of first b( ): T h e"re will be less vehicular conflicts on East College Street as aresult of placing the driveway on Granger Street.Change a( ): in"cr.e.as e.the burden on public facilities by increasing traffic and need forparkingin.c.re.a.se in pedestrian traffic under the new proposal there would be more tenants occupyingthe property than at the current time."tdMR.rES#S7MA1N4MOV8E'DUTHA T T'HE MINUTES BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED. MR. STEWARTSECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}Citizen's comments: None 'New Business:Sharon Wills, 116 Bantry Street-Variancefor Lot CoverageMs. Wills wishes to have a house built in the Village Green,which does not specify maximum lotcoverage in its covenants. The PUD permits 20 per cent coverage. Her request,while within setbacklines,would be 21. 55 per cent coverage. If there is a discrepancy, the ordinance prevails. Jim Cooper,legal counsel, said that in 1993 the GPC and the engineers approved specifications for the Village Greenbut neglected to clarify total lot coverage. The restrictive covenants set forth in the plat call for a minimalbuilding area of 1800 sq.ft for two stories and 1400 sq.ft for one story of living area. Ms. Wills' buildingplan, stated Mr. Cooper,appears reasonable and consistent.Frank B. Murphy, developer of the Village Green said he went back and found all two-storyhouses are within the 20 per cent,and the Wills house would be 1850 sq.ft. or 2300 with garage. He wasnot aware of this 20 per cent until recently. There are four other homes over the coverage allowed,andthere are six lots left. Ms. Wimberger thought that there were seven houses over the maximum 20 per cent,ranging from 20.4 sq.ft to 31. 18.Darryl Payne asked about setbacks and was told that all are within setbacks. He added that most lots are quite small and they like it that way.Ms. Matesich stated she lives next door to Ms. Wills property and wondered if Ms. Wills could redesign her house to fit within the lot coverage. She feels the 1 12/ per cent over the 20 sq.ft. maximum is significant and will severely impact her space and view.Mr. Stewart asked what options have been explored that would not require a variance, and Mr. Will said that when they bought the lot,they assumed they could put it as the setback decreed. They spent a lot of money on the plans and nobody said anything about the restriction. They were told it's too big even though within setbacks They could change things and move the house farther back. The house islif 44BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999wheelchair-accessible The next-door neighbor stated that the actual house is the issue,rather than thesetbacks.Although Mr. Sharkey takes neighbors' concerns seriously,in this case there are several otherhomes exceeding the maximum lot coverage. The Wills could move the house farther back,and he feels itappropriate to grant the variance. The next-door neighbor felt that just because there have been othervariances allowed,that is insufficient reason to do it again. Mr. Sharkey said they did not come beforethis body for variances..Ms. Caravana stated that she was opposed to the last variance the BZBA granted test it set aprecedent.These matters should be written in the covenant rather than granting variances all the time.She thought Ms. Wills could shave a couple of feet off the garage. She does not see hardship or specialcircumstances.Darryl Payne feels it appropriate to grant the 1 1/2 per cent over the maximum20%than to builda two-story because most of the houses are one story on this side ofBantry Street. It would be better tohave a one-story house fit in with the other homes. He doubts that anyone could detect aesthetically the 11/2 per cent overage.Mr.Herman wondered whether the neighbor's concern would be remedied by not granting thevariance and did not think it would be There is precedent in this area and to deny the variance woulddeprive her of rights enjoyed by others. , e , -Mr. Stewart felt that since other houses exceed the coveragele.alls this credence to Ms.Willsassertion that nobody knew about this and it would be unfair to impose that kit?d ofrestriction. That it'sone story makes it less imposing on the street.Ms. Caravana stated that the other houses were built over the maximum through an oversight onthe part of the Village,and in this case a variance should be granted. But we should take this intoconsideration when the other seven houses are built.Ms. Wills said that three years ago they selected their lot and wanted to be sure it was inaccordance with the neighborhood and feels this plan will fit in well. The overage is not very much.MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. ESSMANSECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Mr. Herman applied the criteria:A)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. N/A .B)That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive theapplicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under theprovisions of this Ordinance. We have received testimony in terms ofother lot coverages exceeding 20per cent;there are seven in this area.C)That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.N/AD)Granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by thisOrdinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. There are seven others who exceedthe maximum lot coverage.2E)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,safety andgeneral welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Itwould not affect health,safety or general welfare. It would be consistent with the other homes.Joseph and Karen Hickman,326 North Granger Street - VariancesThe applicants wish to construct an 8'x18' a(pproximately)front porch within the front and sideyard setbacks. It would extend 3'-4' closer to Granger Street. It would line up with other houses on thestreet, and several houses in this area .have front porches within the front setback The variances are forfront and side setbacks and lot coverage. The house already exceeds the lot coverage at 23 per cent,andthe plan would increase it to 24.9 per cent.Mr.Hickman stated that his family requests a front porch p"rimarily because everybody shouldhave a front porch."It's a relatively small house and there is no other place for a porch. The Hickmansbelieve that a front porch would be a good aesthetic addition to the house. It would have a wooden floorwith a shed type roof and a railing with wood spindles. He thought the improvement would enhance theneighborhood.Mr. Sharkey adduced about the location compared to others,and Mr. Hickman said the fourthhouse down is closer to the road than this would be. He would like a variance from the code in order tomake the porch large enough to put chairs and a swing on the porch.A neighbor across the street thought " it would be terrific for Joe to have a front porch."Ms. Wimberger stated that Mr. Hickman included the pavement in his calculations but it doesnot need to be, so it's 23.6 per cent and with the ;proposed porch,it would be 24.9 per cent instead of 37per cent. There have been variances for other houses in the area. Other houses exceed building lotcoverage of 20 per cent.Ms. Caravana said the pool is temporary and included in the calculations but could be removed.The porch is open so would be less imposing than aF-een*.41- a -·,4--*·4* 1-AZ*2S.€'MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MR. STEWARTSECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.Ms. Caravana applied the criteria:A)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures( ) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The structure is an open porch and less imposing on the neighbors. The applicant has a temporary pool, which is included in the coverage but could be removed.B)That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Other properties in the district have slight lot coverage overages. A literal interpretation would deprive him of the privilege of sitting on his front porch. CD That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. TDhe)BGoraarndtisnegesthneo pvarorbialenmcewwitihll tnhoist ccroitnefreiar. r )f C r- iE />j 1/ r,u,1>,Lr/ *\ Ordinance to other lands on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this privilege would be granted boyr sthtrisucvtaurriaenscien the same zoning district. The Board feels that no unduer L1/-3 BZBA Minutes -May 27,19994 BZBA Minutes -May 27,1999 F iE)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,safety andgeneral welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Thevariance would not adversely affect and might even enhance the area.Finding of Fact:Consensus of the group adopted the decisions of the Board for the two applications asformal findings of the Board.Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.Next Meetings: June 24 and July 22Adjournment: 8:50Respectfully Submitted,Betty Allen4